Pass. The sources appear to be inadequate, and after all, he doesn't appear to have done anything out of the ordinary in the Revolutionary War.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass. Accetpable article. The picture of Ewing appears elsewhere on the internet, however.
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 18:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass topic is probably notable, but this is not article-ready as the "notable" portion of the submission contains no prose whatsoever (!), and everything else is sourced unreliably.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass while plenty of reliable sources are used, none discuss the topic in-depth, and notability is not inherited.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 21:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fail. I tend to lean accept, but I'm not seeing how this meets notability requirements. All sources provided are really the same promotional announcement of his signing repeated at different outlets. The discography also doesn't provide enough context to show how
WP:NMUSIC applies. -
2pou (
talk) 22:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass but with commentary: I think the article is probably safe to publish, so in that sense I've no issue with this. However, the work flow was a bit 'unusual', perhaps: Clearfrienda earlier declined the draft, then resubmitted it on behalf of the creator following some improvements. It was straight away declined by another reviewer, and yet soon afterwards accepted by Clearfrienda. I understand where Clearfrienda was coming from — they clearly felt that the article was okay to accept, having worked (at least a bit) with the creator to improve it; however, having seen that it had meanwhile been declined, I myself would have either stepped back at that point, or at least checked in with the declining reviewer (which may have been done, FAIK, although I've seen no evidence of that). I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, as such, every reviewer makes their own calls of course, but given the two widely differing views on the exact same draft, wasn't an opportunity to discuss, at least, missed here? (Happy to be proven wrong, natch.) --
DoubleGrazing (
talk) 17:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I thought to fail again, but it's borderline, and perhaps clarification is better. Could the comment be elaborated some more? There are multiple sources listed, and perhaps some are not unreliable, but the two reviews (On: Yorkshire Magazine and Albumism) seem to claim editorial oversight. Might be better to update the comment with which source is the only reliable one or which sources are unreliable. -
2pou (
talk) 23:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass one small quibble, it looks to have material drawn from the German version of the article, it might have been appropriate to decline while seeking clarification. --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 10:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass. The sources appear to be inadequate, and after all, he doesn't appear to have done anything out of the ordinary in the Revolutionary War.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 07:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass. Accetpable article. The picture of Ewing appears elsewhere on the internet, however.
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 18:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass topic is probably notable, but this is not article-ready as the "notable" portion of the submission contains no prose whatsoever (!), and everything else is sourced unreliably.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 15:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass while plenty of reliable sources are used, none discuss the topic in-depth, and notability is not inherited.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions) 21:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Fail. I tend to lean accept, but I'm not seeing how this meets notability requirements. All sources provided are really the same promotional announcement of his signing repeated at different outlets. The discography also doesn't provide enough context to show how
WP:NMUSIC applies. -
2pou (
talk) 22:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass but with commentary: I think the article is probably safe to publish, so in that sense I've no issue with this. However, the work flow was a bit 'unusual', perhaps: Clearfrienda earlier declined the draft, then resubmitted it on behalf of the creator following some improvements. It was straight away declined by another reviewer, and yet soon afterwards accepted by Clearfrienda. I understand where Clearfrienda was coming from — they clearly felt that the article was okay to accept, having worked (at least a bit) with the creator to improve it; however, having seen that it had meanwhile been declined, I myself would have either stepped back at that point, or at least checked in with the declining reviewer (which may have been done, FAIK, although I've seen no evidence of that). I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, as such, every reviewer makes their own calls of course, but given the two widely differing views on the exact same draft, wasn't an opportunity to discuss, at least, missed here? (Happy to be proven wrong, natch.) --
DoubleGrazing (
talk) 17:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I thought to fail again, but it's borderline, and perhaps clarification is better. Could the comment be elaborated some more? There are multiple sources listed, and perhaps some are not unreliable, but the two reviews (On: Yorkshire Magazine and Albumism) seem to claim editorial oversight. Might be better to update the comment with which source is the only reliable one or which sources are unreliable. -
2pou (
talk) 23:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Pass one small quibble, it looks to have material drawn from the German version of the article, it might have been appropriate to decline while seeking clarification. --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 10:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)reply